Talk:Kim Ryholt

Sheshi's date in the SIP cannot be based on the Uronarti find

Dear Sir or Madam,

Have you seen pages 94-95 of Daphna Ben Tor's 2010 paper titled: The Second Intermediate Period: Thirteenth-Seveenth Dynasties, (ed. Marcel Maree) as published by OLA 192. It is available for download for free here: http://www.academia.edu/1566952/Sequence_and_Chronology_of_SIP_royal-name_scarabs. (see pages 94-95)

Ben Tor reveals that the seals of Sheshi at Uronarti were not found in situ (intact) but were in fact New Kingdom intrusions. Yvonne Markowitz confirmed this to Ben Tor...and Reisner also suspected that the context of the Uronarti sealing was not secure. As Ben Tor writes:

"Arguments against the absolute date proposed by Ryholt for the Maaibre sealing and the Yaqubhar scarab were presented by Susan Aeelen and Ruhama Bonfil, based on the analysis of the ceramic assemblages associated with them. The pottery associated with the Uronarti sealings dates them to the latter part of the Thirteenth Dynasty, and parallels from Tell el-Dab'a come from strata F-E/3, dated by the excavators to c.1720-1650 BC. this would place the Maaibra sealing within the chronological range attributed to the Fourteenth Dynasty. It is important to note, however, a fragmentary sealing among the Uronarti sealings depicting the Hathor symbol flanked by vertical columns of the nr formula (Fig 1) This design is not attested on Egyptian Middle Kingdom scarabs, but occurs on Canaanite scarabs found in Palestine (Fig. 2) The latter, however, depict the Canaanite version of the Hathor symbol, which differs considerably from the Egyptian prototype as clearly shown by Sylvia Schroer. The Egyptian version of the Hathor symbol is depicted with the nr formula only on scarabs of the Eighteenth Dynasty. (Fig 3.)....Two additional fragments among the Uronarti sealings most probably display Eighteenth Dynasty designs<>, corroborating the occurence of Eighteenth Dynasty intrusions among the bulk of late Middle Kingdom sealings at the site. This was confirmed by Yvonne Markowitz,...[and] the likelihood of such intrusions was already acknowleged by Reisner. The context of the Uronarti sealing is, therefore, not secure and evidence presented below suggests that the Maaibre sealing is most probably an Eighteenth Dynasty intrusion. The use of Second Intermediate Period scarabs for sealing in the Eighteenth Dynasty is attested at Tell el-Dab'a, where a significant number of such examples were recently found in archaeological contexts dating from the reign of Thutmose III. (p.95)"

• <>Ben Tor cites page 68 figure 16 of a 1955 Reisner article in a footnote. That article is GA Reisner, 1955. 'Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort, Kush 3, 26-69

Therefore, Sheshi was Not contemporary with the early 13th dynasty kings Khabaw and Djedkheperew--as Ryholt has argued--since his seals were most likely New Kingdom intrusions and the Uronarti context is not secure with seals of 18th dynasty design found there. However, Ben Tor confirms that the Shikmona scarab of Khyan was found in a secure context...which dates to the early 15th Dynasty (pp.95-96). Ben Tor also says that Yaqubhar and Khyan's seals are very close in style which suggests that they lived/ruled close in time with each other. Ryholt is a good scholar but he was slightly wrong on dating Sheshi's position in the SIP. He has thus far not admitted this mistake but Ben Tor has shown that Ryholt's arguments for an early 13th dynasty date for Sheshi is likely not possible. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So where should Sheshi be placed ? Also I am highly troubled by the purported coexistence of Khyan and Sobekhotep IV. The latter lived c. 1720 BC while the 15th dynasty finished c. 1550 BC. Even if Apepi and Khamudi add up to 50 years and even if we put Khyan before Sakir Har and attribute this guy also c. 40 years (ultra-generous) we only arrive at c. 1640 BC. Where are the missing 80 years ?? Iry-Hor (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does Reisner accept that the Uronarti context was not secure? As far as I know he reported with seal impressions as a closed deposit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunnakhte (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• In Ben Tor's 2010 paper, she commented on the close similarity of Khyan and Yaqubhar's seals and believed that these 2 kings lived close in time together--around the early 15th dynasty...and this was before the Tell Edfu discovery. Reisner may have suspected NK intrusions at the Uronarti fort already but Markowitz confirmes it and there are several designs of seals which only use NK designs. I don't know where Sheshi should be placed but I think he is a 14th dynasty king--but perhaps a more powerful 14th dynasty king than the other kings of this dynasty. But since I know little of Sheshi, I don't mention his affiliation much on Wikipedia. Just try to download Ben Tor's paper. Ryholt has known of Ben Tor's paper for years and yet he hasn't changed his views. I don't know why. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I read, everybody agrees that the Uronarti context is secure and Ryholt arguments that Sheshi, Khabaw and Djedkheperew where near contemporaries seem very strong. It is clear that Ryholt stands by his ground in this article. The only problem I continue to have is about the dating of Khyan. Since Ryholt proposes that Khyan stopped using the Heqa Khasut title and replaced it with Egyptian royal titles, then it seems that dating Khyan to the time of Sobekhotep IV, implies that 3 to 4 Hyksos kings (Sakir Har etc.) ruled before Sobekhotep IV, which is much too early. As noted above, there is a gap of 80 to 100 years to be filled. Also if we accept Khyan as a contemporary to Sobekhotep IV, then Ryholt argument p.112-113 that Yaqubhar does not belong to the 15th dynasty based on him not using the Heqa Khasut title is not so strong. Are we sure that Sakir Har came before Khyan?? I wil now read Ben Tor's paper on the question, but if he dated the context as he did that of Shiqmona, it might explain why he turns the chronology on its head by making Sobekhotep IV and Khyan near contemporaries. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

forgive me for adding a comment. I observe for several years how much Ryholt's work is used here on Wiki and I am not very happy about it. Ryholt's book is amazing, and he delivers on many difficult points handy solutions. Many Egyptologists writing general summaries on Egyptian history follow Ryholt, because many of his solutions are so convincing. However, there are big problems in detail with many of his conclusions, as indicated with the Seshi problem in this discussion. Another problem are the double names. Ryholt sees them as filiation (X son of Y), but there are important reasons to think that double names are just double names and not filiations (double names are just very common in that period and well attested for private people). I tried to add here and there references and discussions where Egyptologists have other opinions than Ryholt (these are often researches, especially working on the Second Intermediate Period !!). However, these other opinions are spread over many reviews and articles, so often not easy to find. I never collected them systematically, while I also have a copy of his book here. Unfortunally, there s not yet a new big volume on the Second Intermediate Period where a different view on the Second Intermediate Period is delivered. PS.: For the dating of Khyan and Edfu, see now: Porter, Robert M.: The Second Intermediate Period according to Edfu, Goettinger Mizsellen 239 (2013), p. 75-80, where the author argues for good reasons that Khyan reigned much later than Sobekhotep IV. In Edfu they still used older seals of Sobekhotep IV after he died. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply on Ryholt's views Iry-Hor. Ryholt stands by his ground in his 2010 article. But one must read Ben Tor's 2010 paper to get a different perspective. Also, don't forget to download Ben Tor and the Allen's BASOR 315 (1999) pp.47-74 here: http://www.academia.edu/2012903/Seals_and_Kings_with_James_and_Susan_Allen_ Ian Shaw, the editor of 'The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt', cited this BASOR paper for not accepting Ryholt's SIP chronology for those SIP kings who are known only from scarabs. (ie. Sheshi, Yaqubhar). I became highly skeptical of Ryholt's ideas of the 14th dynasty after reading Ben Tor and the Allen's BASOR 1999 paper. As an aside, I will not be able to see GM 239 for maybe the next 6 months at my Canadian university. unlike Udimu but if what Porter says is correct then Khyan may not have ruled as close in time to Sobekhotep IV...as I and everyone on EEF thought from the Tell Edfu evidence. It did trouble me that Sobekhotep III/Neferhotep I/Sobekhotep IV were one of the most powerful pharaohs of the 13th dynasty and yet they didn't control a united Egypt. But...one must wait and see if Porter's word will stand the 'test of time' and historical scrutiny, I suppose. Unfortunately, Ryholt's proposed 14th dynasty SIP chronology was fatally undermined by Ben Tor and the Allens single BASOR 315 (1999) paper. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I will read the Porter article in more detail and might add information of the article into the relevant articles. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (otherwise, I strongly recommend to delete this discussion here; Ryholt is a living person and it is just not fair to discuss his work in such a way).

To Udimu: ideally we should discuss on each relevant article the various dates and chronological positions that have been proposed. In my edits, I rely mostly on Ryholt and Baker not only because I have their books but mostly because these books enable a coherent reconstruction of the period. By that I mean that following their hypotheses is a way of removing the numerous instances where existing wikipedia articles contradict themselves or one another (for example saying A succeeded B and in the article on B, we find C preceded B then came A etc...). These contradictions are clearly due to the many hypotheses that exist but in most instances these hypotheses are not discussed and lead to contradicting affirmations. Similarly a number of confusions affect articles on the SIP which I and others have settled thanks to Ryholt's book, such as the one between Mentuhotep VI and Montuhotepi and Khaankhre Sobekhotep and Sekhemrekhutawy Sobekhotep. The later would have been particularly harmful since the discovery of Sekhemrekhutawy Sobekhotep's tomb led to c.30,000 people a day to visit his article. I am trying to gather Bietak, Franke and von Beckerath reconstructions of the period as well, but it's a much harder task as you noticed since there is no single book to look at. Additionally, I don't speak German very well. That said, I will read Ben Tor's and Allen's articles to learn more on Sheshi. Also I am glad to read that Sobekhotep IV may not be a contemporary of Khyan after all. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: On the contrary I think Ryholt, being a researcher, would be happy to see his work discussed and compared with that of others, be it here on wikipedia or in research articles. We are not slandering anyone. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

sadly, I do not have much time in the very moment, but started many articles on the 13th Dynsty kings, years ago and tried to balance between von Beckerath and Ryholt. Franke wrote an important article on the period in the Journal of Egyptian history (http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/187416608786121310). Schneider's article in the volume on Egyptian Chronology is important too. Baker gives a nice summary, but follows too much Ryholt and does not add much new. bw -- Udimu (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kim Ryholt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201124125/http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-cv.pdf/ to http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-cv.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kim Ryholt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022010009/http://cif.tors.ku.dk/ to http://cif.tors.ku.dk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126140737/http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ to http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201124125/http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-cv.pdf/ to http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-cv.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916190045/http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-publ.pdf to http://cif.tors.ku.dk/people/ryholt/ryholt-publ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)